Labour MPs

Gracesgran

'It is the opinion of someone who feels anger with what has happened with Labour in the past POGS and we are all entitled to our opinions".

Very true BUT 'anger and entitlement' to an opinion is not the domain for those who agree with you or indeed you as an individual. We all have 'anger and opinions' don't we. So basically there is neither a merit nor point to mentioning it, it should be commonly accepted. Unless of course there is a touch of narcassism in believing everybody should agree with you.

Anniebach

You make my case very well. You see Corbyn as being principled when he 'repeatedly' voted against his Leader / Party but you do not believe that others should be given the same right , I find that also troubling.

Why on earth is Corbyn suddenly permitted to vote either now or in the past with his conscience but not any other Labour MP since Corbyn became the Leader?

It should not be a 'selective' requirement to tell an MP he/she should put them self up for reselection just because 'you' don't agree with them. There would be no MP's left!

Over the past few weeks I have seen and heard the mantra 'this is new politics, we respect each others point of view' but this is looking more and more as quite the opposite. It should be 'this is the new politics, we respect each others point of view but only if you agree with me and me alone, if not not resign from the Party'.

That is not new politics, that is not listening to each others point of view and respecting each other, that is blatant bullying but done under the guise of displaying loyalty to the Party /Corbyn , so that's alright then. No it isn't!

If Corbyn was no longer Leader and went back to being a back bench MP the same people calling for 'heads to roll' would soon shut up or change their opinion to suit their own personal views. Or would they stand by the 'principle' that you should be put up for reselection if you don't give 100% support to the Leader, Corbyn and McDonnell included.

Fully support him on Trident. No one should push a nuclear 'button' ever.

Under what circumstances? A pre-emptive strike? In retaliation? I hope I never live to see it.

And bring back the LEAs. All good stuff.

I notice that they have a Blair spindoctor, Lance Price, again on the BBC news channel, discussing the papers.
Guess what I will be explaining to my grandson tomorrow!

theconversation.com/corbyn-does-pr-he-just-does-it-differently-48350

This is a very interesting look at Corbyn's triumph.

Corbyn has always been against Trident. Many of us agree with him.
It is obviously something that he will have to put to the membership and ultimately to the voters. It does not matter what the rest of his cabinet say. It will only matter when he becomes PM.

I am beginning to wonder, did I mishear it; it was on the BBC news.
now.

So what is the truth?

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/27/corbyn-trident-vote-rejected-labour-party-conference

Then you didn't understand it soon , or you read it in the press and believed it to be true, it wasn't

rq - as I understood it, the unions didnt want it discussed because of the jobs. So it wasnt discussed, ie the unions dictated what was and wasnt discussed.

Did this happen under Labour?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34404651

kittysjones.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/a-list-of-official-rebukes-for-tory-lies/

Just to stir the mix a bit more.

It is an ongoing comment, not new, based on many examples of reading neutral posts which have been treated as though they were attacks. A form of "carrying the war to the enemy" - except that in the main the post was not from an enemy, just an observer.

You will probably now - quite reasonably - ask me for chapter and verse. Sorry, but that would involve trawling with the incompetent Gransnet search engine, and I CBA.

Have to ask Elegran, your post re twisting post, is that another complaint or an explanation for previous complains ?

Elegran

twisted a post and used their interpretation of it as a stick
Perhaps it's because other posters can't see facial expressions, hear the intonations and are therefore unable to interpret nuances or subtle meanings.
Or perhaps they can only see things from a certain angle.
'If you're not for me you must be against me' - which is not necessarily true.

That's OK, rosequartz Thank you for noticing that i don't, in fact, complain very often.

When I do, it is mostly because someone has twisted a post and used their interpretation of it as a stick with which to beat the poster.

Sadly, political and religious discussions (in the big wide world as well as on GN) tend to go that way.

you will soon have the trodden down factories of communist countries
With the rich elite at the top of the tree and the downtrodden masses at the bottom (and the educated professionals and dissenters being 'disappeared')

Plus ca change etc

soon I don't think it was because of the Unions that Trident wasn't discussed (unless I heard it wrong) - the Unions are worried about the job losses which could ensue.

Rosequartz, it was Elegran herself who said she complains
anniebach I realised that afterwards! [seniormoment] - I posted just afterwards:
Elegran I do apologise - you did complain

Well sorted then isn't it , good

Much confusion now reigns in the shadow cabinet and with Labour MPs, as Corbyn says he (as PM) ......future fantasy land btw, would ' never, under any circumstances use nuclear weapons.' where is the discussion he espouses? Now he could never be PM, precisely because he has said that.
No government ( in the West) would ever want to use them, but if we don't have any, or say openly we would never use them ( which amounts to the same thing)that leaves our country open to threats ( nuclear in nature) from any aggresive country or group within a country who chooses to threaten us.
So he has just ruled himself out of any future as Prime Minister, not that he was exactly viable anyway.

I would be interested how JC is going to make employers shorten hours and pay more. Labour doesn't want that! And then clapping and an ovation from the conference.
Of course they don't want it but Labour can't alter it unless they nationalise all industry and you will soon have the trodden down factories of communist countries.
Those conference people were pleased to be sitting there adoring their leader. I wouldn't trust them an inch. Wait until he puts a foot wrong and they will be on their phones telling him where to get off and worse.

Reading this thread for the first time, there are so many things I dont know where to start.

Corbyn needs to know he can trust people. Yeah right.
Backstabbing is not allowed. Yeah right.
They should be fighting Tories not Corbyn. Yeah right.
Corbyn could be trusted, they knew where he stood. By that definition, those on the right can do the same cant they, they just keep speaking up loudly. Oh, and not resign.

Slight paraphrasing may have gone on with the above.

dj post tues 16.51pm What did you expect? Them all to roll over? Really?

Rosequartz, it was Elegran herself who said she complains

You so wrong soon, and yes it has been discussed

Elegran I do apologise - you did complain - about posts picking fights where none exist
Which is a fairly reasonable assertion imo.